Re: Antw: Re: Mutually exclusive (timer-triggered) services

[Reindl Harald <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Am 17.10.19 um 08:02 schrieb Ulrich Windl:
>> Or did I miss something and the second flock somehow obtains the inode
>> number of the old lock?
> 
> I guess any new process arriving late cannot aquire the (same) lock once the
> first process has removed the name when the crowd has finished.
> But as the remove itself locks, it means that the remove will happen only
> after the lock has been released (requests being server FCFS (FIrst Come, First
> Serviced).
> If there's one process late, a new lock will be created, and likewise any new
> arrivals will use that lock, until the lock is free.
> 
> Doesn't look like a 100% solution to me, but it might work.

it's about *multiple* services and hence might not work

it's the same as wenn you "tail -f" a logfile while in the meantime
logrotate came, tail follows the old file with no further changes, the
disk space is not freed because the open handlebut the rest of the world
don#t care and is using the new one
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel